Weekly Forms WG Teleconference -- 4 Apr 2007

<Dave> I don't remember seeing an agenda but with the flood of emails from HTML WG it may have gotten lost

<John_Boyer> it went to public-forms, but i cc'd w3c forms

<ebruchez> hello

<Steven_> zakim. [ibm is Jan

I thhink he replied he wouldnt be here

I can take minutes

or at least try

<John_Boyer> Scribe: Nick

Why no www.w3.org link to forms wg

<John_Boyer> it has link to xforms, not forms

<scribe> ACTION: Steven to see what should be done to add a link to forms on www.w3.org [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/04-xforms-minutes.html#action01]

Steven: we change our irc channel to forms

Steven lets keep it all forms

<scribe> ACTION: Steven change our code to FORMS on zakim [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/04-xforms-minutes.html#action02]

<John_Boyer> http://www.w3.org/2002/Forms/Activity.html

John: Our activity statements links to xforms

<scribe> ACTION: Steven Update http://www.w3.org/2002/Forms/Activity.html so it is 'Forms' in the navigation bar at the right [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/04-xforms-minutes.html#action03]

John: Forms WG page is already updated (changed XForms to Forms)

XForms Conference at XML Conference

John: Nothing is done yet

XForms 1.1

John: Voice WG wants us to extend our last call period
... Should we publicly anounce that we extend our LC period

Steven: Then we should sent an e)-mail to all chairs

John: We want to produce CR by end of next F2F meeting?

Steven: All LC comments two weeks before next F2F, so we can triage them

John: Should we extend the LC to the end of April?

Steven: anything till the end of may should be OK for us
... Should we say mid may

John: I prefer end of april

RESOLUTION: Extend the LC period to the end of April

Raman: Are we going to take XForms Basic to PR?

Steven: I thing we should take it to REC

<David_> I'm here but cannot speak

John: David has aggread to work on a profile for mobile

<John_Boyer> ok, David, thanks

<David_> John: That is true

John: If Leigh is back we will see what needs to be done for Basic

Steven: We should work on it again, we are now rechartered

<David_> We can participate in the call

John: Maybe david should stand up in a call to say that they implemented it

<scribe> ACTION: Steven setup call for XForms Basic 1.0 (including John and David) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/04-xforms-minutes.html#action04]

<scribe> ACTION: Steven to increase slots on zakim [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/04-xforms-minutes.html#action05]

<Steven_> http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms-basic/

John: This is the document http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms-basic/ that we will take in to the phone call

Steven: There is a PR version somewhere

John: We should move it to the public space

<scribe> ACTION: John move PR version of XForms basic to the public space [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/04-xforms-minutes.html#action06]

XForms transitional

Raman: I don't think it is a good idea

Dave: I think it is, there are good technical issues

Raman: Not sure when the traskforce will be operational

<Steven_> who is phoning from area code 703?

Raman: It can damage XForms more then it will do good
... We should attach the name XForms to it

John: Dan is now aware of future vision document

<Steven_> Draft version of Basic PR: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/Group/Drafts/xforms-basic-20061109.html

Raman: Dave's work isn't complete yet, but looks good, but it isn't that mature as WEB Forms 2

Dave: the task force should talk about the features, Ian can be editor

John: There should be two editors one of the two groups

Schnitz: now is the time to make xforms transitional mature

<Dave> Dave missed Eric Raymond's email reviewing XFT

Schnitz: we should do it in combination with the html wg

John: We should engage to work in forms taskforce

<Steven_> Shane is reinitialising the issues list now

<Steven_> should be reset within 5 mins

<John_Boyer> thx

John: We need taskforce memebers

<Steven_> issues list done

Schnitz: Now is not the time yet

John: They should produce a WD in June
... We should wait till the grace period ends

Schnitz: We should wait till the html wg has a second chair
... So the can decide who can join the Taskforce from the html WG

Backplane

John: Charlie isn't here, so nothing to discuss now

<John_Boyer> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2007Mar/0057.html

Complex type validation issue

<John_Boyer> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2007Mar/0057.html

<ebruchez> (I am leaving the call for 5 minutes)

John: We should answer his updated answer
... Can anyone reply?
... We leave it on the agenda

Version attribute follow-up

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-forms/2007JanMar/0233.html

John: We talked about it prev. week
... I wonder if versioning xforms a host language issue

Schnitz: will the xforms version on the hostlange, or does the profile defines the xforms version in the hostlanguage
... If it is a profile then it is a CDF issue

<ebruchez> back

John: isn't it just a CDF issue

Schnitz: Maybe we should find out

<John_Boyer> Schnitz: We believe there should in fact be a version for XForms itself

<John_Boyer> Schnitz: not just a looser interpretation

<John_Boyer> Schnitz: from the host langauge

MarkB: Two aspects, does the processor needs to know what version he is dealing with (for backwards compatiblity), It is usefull for authors to know with version the document is

<John_Boyer> MarkB: it becomes really clear in new samples of XForms 1.1 that you need to have a 1.1 processor for it to work

<John_Boyer> Schnitz and MarkB: should make a global xf:version attribute available to the host language

MarkB: We have a attribute that the hostlanguage can use to flag the version

Schnitz: It can make a difference if you have a transformational processor

John: Can someone (MarkB, Or schints) post a LC comments to introduce a global attribute for versioning as an improvement

<Steven_> http://htmlwg.mn.aptest.com/cgi-bin/xforms-issues is now empty

<scribe> ACTION: MarkB to send LC comments to introduce a global attribute for versioning as an improvement [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/04-xforms-minutes.html#action07]

Problems with deleting the context node

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2007Feb/0027.html

John: I want to have the ability to have tables that always have one row
... If you delete the context node all subsequent actions thet use the context will fail afterwards

<ebruchez> tough one

John: Now I need to,if I want to delete the last node, insert first, use set index to the second item, and then do the delete

<Zakim> Dave, you wanted to ask about repeat-min, repeat-max

Dave: shouldnt we use a declerative way to define a reapeat min and repeat max

John: In XForms 1.1 we make the insert and delete dom mutation actions
... Steven asked to do this use cases in a more declerative way, but that wil prob. not just require one attribute, it will require extra events,...
... Can everyone please look to the next three issues items in the agenda

<Steven_> who was 703?

John: They are technical, and some preperation is necessary

- DRAFT -

Weekly Forms WG Teleconference

4 Apr 2007

Attendees

Contents